Life and Times at the Head of the Chesapeake Bay

Lately, I’ve been reading a lot about the sock puppet, review buying scandal “gripping” the ebook world. I used quotes because, frankly, I’m fresh out of shits to give about whatever system-gaming tactics other people are engaging in. Don’t get me wrong, I believe the people using fake accounts to rip other writers and their work are cowardly bastards that deserve our scorn. I also believe faking an account or getting you friends and relatives to write glowing reviews of your stuff comes off as desperate and a little pathetic. As for buying reviews, I’m honestly a little indifferent to that. It’s not something I’d do, and it’s deceptive if you know the reviews are bogus. But marketing itself is far more frequently deceptive than not. We don’t bitch when our favorite athletes or movie stars take fat checks to hock cars, watches, fast food or what have you. That’s obviously fraudulent marketing, too. Why aren’t we railing against that? No, buying reviews doesn’t even register as something I care about in the least.

My primary issue is the self-righteous indignation that has exploded in some circles over this matter. Don’t you people have anything better to do, like writing a book or something? System gaming and pushing the boundaries to get ahead is the American way. Rules exist simply so we know where the lines are when we cross them for personal advantage. Sure, that’s a cynical attitude, but then I’m not the one sitting here spewing morality and lying to myself about human nature.

I am shocked by one thing, though, that there are so many people who seem to have no conception of what the publishing industry really is. It’s a shark tank filled to the brim with lies, deception, trickery and questionable ethics, same as it ever was. Stomping this set of tactics out will only serve to the advantage of whoever’s got the next system-rigging scam ready to put in play. Is it fair or ethical? Hell no! It’s publishing.

Anyway, the whole mess reminds me of a piece I wrote over 2-1/2 years ago when some well-meaning but naive folks tried to start a new daily newspaper in the Detroit area. When their effort failed in all of four days, they proceeded to launch a massive whine-fest about the dirty tricks their competitors played on them. I think many of my points about publishing then are still applicable today, and they’ll still be applicable a decade from now, too. So, here is that piece along with the new intro I wrote in italics for its inclusion in my book, The Decline and Fall of the Publishing Empire.

By the way, see what I did there? I plugged my book, complete with hyperlink. Is that ethical? In fact, is this entire post just an excuse to promote my book on the back of a high profile scandal? It’s not, I genuinely think this is a perfectly valid point that I’ve also made in the past. But can you be sure of that just because I say so? Do you want to spend all your time sussing out who’s being totally legit and who’s being manipulative? Is it even possible to tell with any degree of certainty? If so, good luck with that. I’ve got stories to write.

Dirty Tricks- December 1, 2009

I was part of a start up publication a little over a decade ago, taking on an established, much bigger entity. They tried every trick in book to derail us. They swiped our papers from store racks, they pressured printers to not do business with us, the threatened possible backers, even filed a totally and completely frivolous lawsuit that was designed to get us to spend on legal fees instead of actual competition. That’s the nature of this business.

Dirty, low down trickery is second nature in publishing. Always has been, always will be. We, however, were prepared for it, didn’t go under in four days like these guys I talk about here, successfully fended off the lawsuit and, in fact, quite completely kicked their ass head-to-head. The lesson in all this is be prepared. Just having some money and what you think is a good idea is never enough, especially in a fickle industry like publishing.

If you haven’t heard, today I’m going to address the brief life and quick death of the new daily paper in Detroit, which lasted all of four days. Now, when I first read about this, my thoughts weren’t particularly optimistic. This is simply the wrong time in the wrong industry to try something so brazenly risky, but, hey, give ’em points for effort. Anyway, today, I read a lament about the paper’s demise, which largely blamed dirty tricks on the part of Detroit’s other two long-standing major newspapers. You mean publishers actually engaged in dirty tricks against the competition? Color me shocked.

How can anyone at this point possibly be naive enough to have not expected this? Publishing is an industry built on dirty tricks. If there has ever been a manipulative, back-stabbing, sneaky, dirty trick played in the business world anywhere, it likely had its start in publishing. Just because you have a group of well-meaning people with good intentions and more money than sense doesn’t mean that everyone else will just step aside, congratulate you and say, “welcome to the game.”

Publishing is, and always has been, a screw or be screwed industry. That doesn’t mean that you have to play dirty, but you do have to be prepared for it. Expect otherwise and you’ll get eaten alive. It’s part of what attracted me to publishing in the first place. You have to constantly be on your toes because the minute you let your guard down, people will be lining up to burn you. Everyone has an agenda, and part of the fun is in figuring out what that is, while keeping your own close to the vest. Reading between the lines, figuring out the real motivations behind people’s actions and words; those are essential skills. These dynamics exist everywhere in publishing; employee on employee within companies; company on company within markets, that’s simply how the game is played. Whining about dirty tricks after the fact just makes you look even more unprepared than closing up shop in four days does.

When I first heard about the shut down, which has been called temporary (yeah, sorta like death is temporary) it suggested a few things to me. The first is that they were either ill-prepared or seriously underfunded. It’s probably both. But to complain about printers charging you up front, and other competitors putting pressure on vendors to not do business with you? Exactly what industry did you think you were getting into? First off, I wouldn’t trust a printer that didn’t try to charge you in advance for a new start-up. There’s a long-standing tradition in printing, passed down through the generations, of getting small publishers in hock up to their eyeballs in print bills just so they could take them to court and strip them clean of any and all assets. Never, and I repeat, never allow your print bills to be secured debt and run up out of reach. You’re much better off paying up front and shutting down before that happens.

Secondly, it seems that these folks were counting on a massive influx of revenue right out of the gate. Apparently, they took the dissatisfaction of the community with the existing players to mean that just starting a new paper will bring them on board. It simply doesn’t work that way. It takes time to establish a solid revenue base, and if you don’t have the money to fund at least a year’s worth of production without earning back a dime, don’t even bother getting started. It doesn’t matter how pissed people seem, they’re not going to throw money at you until you can prove that you’re a better alternative. Four whole days isn’t even close to making that happen. Four months isn’t long enough.

That being said, I appreciate their initiative, misplaced as it was. The best we can do is learn from their mistakes. Even a weakened print industry isn’t an easy target, and they will not go quietly into that good night.

Dan, to your point…about a month ago, publishers of free newspapers all across the San Francisco Bay Area found 110 of their stolen news racks in and around a dumpster on the grounds of the San Jose Mercury News. When the publishers tried to retrieve the racks that were still usable, Mercury News private security men and managers stopped them. The Merc subsequently claimed that it was asked by a number of cities, including Palo Alto, to remove the racks, but a spokesperson for Palo Also said that it hadn’t requested that the racks be removed, and that it would have contacted the affected publishers directly if it did want them to remove the racks.

Rent A Movie

This promo for “The Monsters of a Rapidly Changing Media Landscape” conference in Shreveport is perfect. The buzzwords, the phrasing, even the clothes are perfect. Our favorite line: “I like the feel of the CD. I like to hold a CD in my hand. I put it into the stereo with two hands, OK?” Stick […]

Two Great Examples of How Journalism Has Changed for the Better – Gigaom Mathew Ingram writes: “It’s worth pointing out when ‘citizen journalism’ — or networked journalism, or whatever we want to call it — really works, and a couple of great examples of that have come to light recently. One of them is related […]

Mathew Ingram offers a reality check on the state of journalism, citing a recent Digiday interview with Jack Shafer in which the media critic says, “news coverage has probably never been more accurate than it is today.” Ingram cites the ability of crowdsourced fact-checking projects as well as social networks to quickly spot inconsistencies that […]

On one level we can understand the teeth-gnashing that follow the Associated Press’ announcement that it plans to start using robots to write the majority of U.S. corporate earnings stories. Robots seem to bring out the Luddite in all of us. What we can’t understand is why anyone outside of a few shop stewards should […]

The leaked “innovation” report from The New York Times that made the rounds in May recommends that the company take more risks, move more quickly and consider radical steps to reinvent itself. Steve Outing wonders what would happen if the Times abandoned daily print editions, and he’s built an elaborate “what-if?” model to test the idea. Outing’s […] […]